US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62NATO: eventually adopt 6.5

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Joglee
    Unwashed
    • Sep 2017
    • 7

    Originally posted by stanc View Post
    I am not one who shares the view that it was a "bad" decision, because the .276 Garand offered only marginal improvement in weight and ammo capacity compared to the .30 M1 rifle.
    IMO, the bad decision was to develop a clip-fed, semi-auto battle rifle to replace a clip-fed, bolt-action battle rifle, instead of creating a mag-fed assault rifle and intermediate cartridge.

    The Garand rifle -- in either caliber -- was truly a classic example of "designing for the last war," instead of the war that was to come; preparing for trench warfare, instead of blitzkrieg.
    With just a little bit of vision, the US Army could have opted for a two-caliber system, keeping .30-06 for machine guns, and developing a cartridge similar to 7.62x39 for assault rifles.



    If designed for such a cartridge, the resulting Garand assault rifle could've been at least 8 inches shorter and 2 pounds lighter than the M1 rifle, with almost 4 times the ammo capacity.

    Supposedly were looking at a future conflict with a major peer nation with these new rifles, but for some reason it just spells Afghanistan.

    Comment

    • stanc
      Banned
      • Apr 2011
      • 3430

      Originally posted by Joglee View Post
      Supposedly were looking at a future conflict with a major peer nation with these new rifles, but for some reason it just spells Afghanistan.
      How so? The official reason for wanting the ICSR is to defeat modern hard body armor, which is not used by the enemy in Afghanistan.

      Comment

      • Joglee
        Unwashed
        • Sep 2017
        • 7

        Originally posted by stanc View Post
        How so? The official reason for wanting the ICSR is to defeat modern hard body armor, which is not used by the enemy in Afghanistan.
        Because they're wanting one gun that can be employed as a Carbine, IAR, and DMR in 7.62.

        I just don't see it holding up to a peer nation employing a whole host of SCHV rifles mixed with large caliber rifles.

        But it's the future the Army wants and they'll get it.

        Comment

        • grayfox
          Chieftain
          • Jan 2017
          • 4295

          Very interesting history discussion!
          Never heard of the 276 pederson before, but I could see where one aspect would work against it, and that's all the machinery tooling changes you'd have to do vice 30-cal (not that I'm a 30 cal fanboy)... but foundries and tool/dies just for the barrels, if you can avoid those changeover costs, that's one advantage I'd think 1930's bean counters would go for...
          But I'm enjoying this thread and all the discussion, learning a lot.
          Regarding the bomber factory... I might suspect that it could be part of a reaction to the 36 war in Spain. I believe I've read where lots of elites and maybe Congress were at first enamored with Mussolini and Fascism (in the 20's) but then you see their "pre-season" game of war in the Spanish revolution... could have made somebody think that maybe we should be preparing more than we had been...
          Just throwing out a couple possibilities.
          Many times I think the bureaucrats are too afraid to plan for the war we might realistically see, instead they prepare for the last war, that's easy to see!!!
          "Down the floor, out the door, Go Brandon Go!!!!!"

          Comment

          • JASmith
            Chieftain
            • Sep 2014
            • 1620

            Having spent some time in the weapons R&D business, I understand the bean counter issues all too well.

            I can also say that I was hugely frustrated during the '70s and '80s that ALL of the non-nuclear wepons development focused on the Fulda Gap scenario with none directed at the then 'Last War - Viet Nam". We threw away a vast store of corporate experience that would have served our nation well in every engagement except the roll-over of Saddam's forces.

            I can also say that the 'Fulda Gap' weapons and doctrine did very well there. I also grudgingly admit that that overwhelming crush of what was publicized as the world's strongest army short of the US or Soviet Union helped with deterrence in the larger sense.

            Nonetheless, a balance of emphasis between 'large war" and continued COIN weaons technology, tactics and doctrine might have placed our national leadership in a better position to make wiser decisions in response to 9/11.
            shootersnotes.com

            "To those who have fought and almost died for it, freedom has a flavor the protected will never know."
            -- Author Unknown

            "If at first you do succeed, try not to look astonished!" -- Milton Berle

            Comment

            • stanc
              Banned
              • Apr 2011
              • 3430

              Originally posted by Joglee View Post
              Because they're wanting one gun that can be employed as a Carbine, IAR, and DMR in 7.62.
              Still not seeing how that "just spells Afghanistan."

              The stated reason for wanting 7.62 weapons is body armor defeat, which has not been an issue in Afghanistan.

              Originally posted by Joglee View Post
              I just don't see it holding up to a peer nation employing a whole host of SCHV rifles mixed with large caliber rifles.
              Since war against a peer nation seems rather unlikely, I doubt that it will matter what caliber weapons are used.

              But, if such a war were to happen, is it possible that 7.62 AP versus 5.45 AP might give the edge to our guys?
              Last edited by stanc; 09-18-2017, 05:34 PM.

              Comment

              • Joglee
                Unwashed
                • Sep 2017
                • 7

                What makes you think peer nations won't be using 5.45 AP? Russia and China control the majority of the world's Tungsten supply.

                Comment

                • stanc
                  Banned
                  • Apr 2011
                  • 3430

                  Originally posted by Joglee View Post
                  What makes you think peer nations won't be using 5.45 AP? Russia and China control the majority of the world's Tungsten supply.
                  Well, ya got me there. I guess I shouldn't try to write and watch TV at the same time...

                  Correction made.

                  Comment

                  • montana
                    Chieftain
                    • Jun 2011
                    • 3209

                    It's been cancelled.

                    Comment

                    • Smokehouse_83
                      Bloodstained
                      • Apr 2017
                      • 29

                      The answer for the military is right here on this sight. The Grendel is the answer. Start building and stock piling uppers, mags, ammo. Start phasing out 5.56 and send in packages with the Grendel uppers/mags/ammo. All the research on the round is done and it flat out works. Why waste millions on R&D when they could spend the millions having uppers/mags/ammo produced and everybody is already familiar with the platform.

                      Comment

                      • LRRPF52
                        Super Moderator
                        • Sep 2014
                        • 8569

                        Originally posted by Smokehouse_83 View Post
                        The answer for the military is right here on this sight. The Grendel is the answer. Start building and stock piling uppers, mags, ammo. Start phasing out 5.56 and send in packages with the Grendel uppers/mags/ammo. All the research on the round is done and it flat out works. Why waste millions on R&D when they could spend the millions having uppers/mags/ammo produced and everybody is already familiar with the platform.
                        If we're sticking with metallic cartridges, I don't want to get rid of 5.56 NATO. I really wish we had the 5.45x39 case to work with using .224 or 6mm projectiles out of it. That would allow more BC to be realized due to the amount of ogive length available.

                        Have DMs shooting Grendel, and a 6.5mm Lightweight LMG that is belt-fed. I'd prefer to have the LSAT with 6.5mm projectiles and the weight reduction.

                        Add a 6.5mm long gun for ELR like they're already working on. The main thing is to slowly phase out Albatross.62 NATO.
                        NRA Basic, Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, RSO

                        CCW, CQM, DM, Long Range Rifle Instructor

                        6.5 Grendel Reloading Handbooks & chamber brushes can be found here:

                        www.AR15buildbox.com

                        Comment

                        • stanc
                          Banned
                          • Apr 2011
                          • 3430

                          I fully agree.

                          Originally posted by LRRPF52 View Post
                          If we're sticking with metallic cartridges, I don't want to get rid of 5.56 NATO. I really wish we had the 5.45x39 case to work with using .224 or 6mm projectiles out of it. That would allow more BC to be realized due to the amount of ogive length available.

                          Have DMs shooting Grendel, and a 6.5mm Lightweight LMG that is belt-fed.
                          But, I wonder if anyone will ever build a belt-fed Grendel LMG...

                          Comment

                          • n9nwo
                            Bloodstained
                            • Dec 2016
                            • 93

                            Originally posted by stanc View Post
                            I am not one who shares the view that it was a "bad" decision, because the .276 Garand offered only marginal improvement in weight and ammo capacity compared to the .30 M1 rifle.
                            IMO, the bad decision was to develop a clip-fed, semi-auto battle rifle to replace a clip-fed, bolt-action battle rifle, instead of creating a mag-fed assault rifle and intermediate cartridge.

                            The Garand rifle -- in either caliber -- was truly a classic example of "designing for the last war," instead of the war that was to come; preparing for trench warfare, instead of blitzkrieg.
                            With just a little bit of vision, the US Army could have opted for a two-caliber system, keeping .30-06 for machine guns, and developing a cartridge similar to 7.62x39 for assault rifles.



                            If designed for such a cartridge, the resulting Garand assault rifle could've been at least 8 inches shorter and 2 pounds lighter than the M1 rifle, with almost 4 times the ammo capacity.

                            My thoughts were that had the M1 Garand been designed more like the M14 with less wood and a box magazine (used the BAR mag) it would have been the right rifle for WW2. The Assault rifle that the Germans designed came very late in the war. Just about everyone was using weapons and ammo from WW1.

                            Comment

                            • n9nwo
                              Bloodstained
                              • Dec 2016
                              • 93

                              Originally posted by LRRPF52 View Post
                              If we're sticking with metallic cartridges, I don't want to get rid of 5.56 NATO. I really wish we had the 5.45x39 case to work with using .224 or 6mm projectiles out of it. That would allow more BC to be realized due to the amount of ogive length available.

                              Have DMs shooting Grendel, and a 6.5mm Lightweight LMG that is belt-fed. I'd prefer to have the LSAT with 6.5mm projectiles and the weight reduction.

                              Add a 6.5mm long gun for ELR like they're already working on. The main thing is to slowly phase out Albatross.62 NATO.
                              The problem with the .224 and 6mm is that they do not pack enough energy to take on stone houses. Or mud brick houses. The Russians found that out with 5.45x39 in Chechnya.

                              6.5mm makes sense. Our heavy cartridge should be the .338NM (8.59x63) for the M240 and sniping.

                              Comment

                              • stanc
                                Banned
                                • Apr 2011
                                • 3430

                                Originally posted by n9nwo View Post
                                My thoughts were that had the M1 Garand been designed more like the M14 with less wood and a box magazine (used the BAR mag) it would have been the right rifle for WW2.
                                I agree it would've been better, but that idea would require Garand design his gas system much differently than he actually did. If he had known how to do that, he would've done so originally.

                                Originally posted by n9nwo View Post
                                The Assault rifle that the Germans designed came very late in the war.
                                Not exactly. The first iteration -- the MKb42 -- entered service in 1942, only midway through the war in Europe.

                                In any case, that has no bearing on my idea that the M1 Garand could easily have been designed as a short, lightweight assault rifle instead of a long, heavy battle rifle.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X